Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.

*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

T O P I C R E V I E W

Robert Pearlman

From someone@msfc.nasa.gov

This 26-foot tall, 1:15 scale model of Ares 1 is now standing in the von Braun office complex at Marshall Space Flight Center. The same or similar model was previously displayed at the Oshkosh Fly-In in Wisconsin last month.

gaetanomarano

In the past, NASA rockets was showed (in full dimensions) only AFTER their real flights, never 10+ years before its first launch...

I think it's not a good idea to show (now) a rocket that may never exist...

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by gaetanomarano:in the past, NASA rockets was showed (in full dimensions) only AFTER their real flights, never 10+ years before its first launch...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, as first, this model is only 1:15 scale and that aside, there is a history of contractor and NASA models of various scales. Take for example, the full scale mock-up of the X-20 Dyna-Soar.

Astro Bill

What I think the cS member means is that the ARES spacecraft has not been constructed and has never been flown. It is still in the planning stage. It is very unusual for a scale model to be prepared and displayed for a spacecraft that has not yet been flown.

Has this ever been done before? Did we have scale models of the Mercury or Gemini or Apollo spacecraft or the Space Shuttle on public display BEFORE it was ever flown?

I cannot imagine that the X-20 model was displayed BEFORE the program was cancelled. The ARES program is still being conceived and planned. Isn't it premature to display a spacecraft in public view that has never been flown?

A search of Google Images of ARES does not result in any images of NASA spacecraft.

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by Astro Bill:Has this ever been done before? Did we have scale models of the Mercury or Gemini or Apollo spacecraft or the Space Shuttle on public display BEFORE it was ever flown?

Perhaps the most famous are the scale models at the New York World's Fair in 1964. In addition to a Gemini-Titan (which hadn't yet flown with a crew when the Fair opened), the exhibit included an Apollo Command/Service Module and a massive mock-up of the thrust section of the Saturn V. The Fair opened on April 22, 1964, and ran for two six-month seasons concluding on October 17, 1965, at least two years before the first test flight of the moon booster.

quote:The X-20 Dyna-Soar model that you linked to was never flown. Was the model placed on exhibit AFTER the project was cancelled by NASA?

The program was canceled in December 1963; the mock-up pictured was displayed at the Air Force Association Convention in 1962.

quote:A search of Google Images of ARES does not result in any images of NASA spacecraft.

By their own admission, Google doesn't update its Images database very often. NASA has published images of the same (or similar) scale model of Ares I from its display at the Oshkosh Fly-In.

Astro Bill

I think there is a difference between exhibiting a futuristic spacecraft at a Worlds Fair or other exhibit and placing a futuristic rocket at the entrance to a place of work for the public to see. The ARES will not be used for ten years or so. Such exhibits on the lawn of a space facility or contractor seems odd, since the rocket has never been built or used. Very strange.

It is a coincidence that the rockets at the World's Fair grounds in Flushing, Queens, New York were used as an example of such futuristic rockets being displayed before a mission is flown with them. While I was President of the International Association of Space Philatelists (1972-1989), we sometimes held meetings at the Hall of Science on those grounds. I walked by those rockets many times, not knowing that they would be part of a debate on exhibiting rockets in the future. But these rockets are those that were exhibited at the Worlds Fair and they had to go some place. Building a scale model of a future rocket and exhibiting it in public seems odd to me. I do hope to see the ARES fly in space in a decade or perhaps earlier.

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by Astro Bill:I do hope to see the ARES fly in space in a decade or perhaps earlier.

The first test flight of the Ares I (albeit a 4-segment version with a mock-up fifth segment to correct for the mass and a boilerplate CEV) is scheduled for NET September 2008. If successful, a second test flight will occur six months later.

Kirsten

This place remotely resembles my front yard here at home ...

gaetanomarano

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:...not sure what you mean by this...

the same as Astro Bill writes in his posts

the 2008/2009 flights are only tests, the first REAL manned flight is planned for 2014/2015

also, the results of the Ares-I tests may be NEGATIVE and the rocket changed in its whole design (or fully deleted!!!)

others reasons to delete the Ares-I may be its R&D costs overrun or further BIG delays in its developement ...with the ESAS plan that shifts to an Apollo-like Single Launch Vehicle

if that will happen... not only the scale model will appear premature, but, all the Ares-I data sheets, drawings, artist's concepts and animations released by NASA will look a bit ridiculous...

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by gaetanomarano:if that will happen... not only the scale model will appear premature, but, all the Ares-I data sheets, drawings, artist's concepts and animations released by NASA will look a bit ridiculous...

Grumman had models of lunar module concepts throughout its development cycle. The preliminary designs are considered today to be among the more desirable artifacts from that era. I haven't heard or read of someone calling the early models or drawings "ridiculous".

The same can be said for early shuttle concepts. The sketches and miniatures that exist from that program illustrate the development process better than some books on the subject.

Gilbert

Robert,Thanks for posting the photograph. I enjoy looking at the model. I may drive by to see it in person in the near future.

gaetanomarano

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Grumman had models of lunar module concepts

there are two major differences between LEM/Shuttle and to-day's Ares/LSAM

1. great part of the design of the Apollo and Shuttle was decided by the technology and the materials available in '60s and '70s, then, a model made years before the real vehicles was very close to them

2. both Apollo and Shuttle have received giant funds giving them ZERO RISKS to be "resized" or "redesigned" or "deleted"

to-day's rockets and vehicles are completely different

we don't know if the "stick" can fly or if it will be changed to a new design or (simply) deleted to shift the plan to an apollo-like AresV

and the same may happen with many parts of the ESAS plan

then, I think it's ridiculous to expose a rocket that may never born (or born with a completely different design) in the same way of a TRUE SaturnV or a REAL Apollo capsule!

it appears (to me) like expose the Millennium Falcon or the Starship Enterprise with the NASA logo...

Robert Pearlman

quote:Originally posted by gaetanomarano:1. great part of the design of the Apollo and Shuttle was decided by the technology and the materials available in '60s and '70s, then, a model made years before the real vehicles was very close to them

The early models of the Space Shuttle were nothing like the vehicle we are flying today.

quote:both Apollo and Shuttle have received giant funds giving them ZERO RISKS to be "resized" or "redesigned" or "deleted"

While perhaps true for Apollo (though it really wasn't the blank check you imply; the LEM in particular was redesigned several times over to accomodate both budget and weight), the shuttle's development was plagued by budget constraints. To quote the Smithsonian:

quote:During the early 1970s, various Space Shuttle designs were proposed and rejected until an acceptable balance between function and cost was reached.

NASA's concept in 1969 was a reusable manned booster and orbiter, but development costs were too high. In mid-1971, North American Rockwell proposed a fully reusable shuttle, like this model, but operating costs were considered too high.

To cut costs, NASA abandoned the fully reusable Shuttle design in favor of one that was partially reusable. Several designs were considered, including this Grumman Aerospace concept for a vehicle with stages that used the Apollo-era Saturn F-1 engine.

Even if the "Stick" is abandoned, the redesign will likely be less drastic than those that occurred early in the Space Transporation System's history.

quote:then, I think it's ridiculous to expose a rocket that may never born (or born with a completely different design) in the same way of a TRUE SaturnV or a REAL Apollo capsule!

And yet history would disagree with you...

gaetanomarano

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:The early models of the Space Shuttle were nothing like the vehicle we are flying today.

in my post I don't refer to the "concepts"

if you look at the deep pages of astronautix you can find dozens of incredible images of different capsules, lunar landers (also from Russia), rockets, mission architectures, etc.

I refer only to the OFFICIAL vehicles from NASA like the defininitive Apollo, LEM, SaturnV and Shuttle design

about the Ares-I... the final rocket may be very close to its design or different or (simply) deleted

I think that NASA must expose a vehicle only after its final design or (better) after its first real flight

Robert Pearlman

I have moved this thread to Models & Toys as the discussion has become one concerning the history of models rather than the future of the vehicle pictured.

quote:Originally posted by gaetanomarano:in my post I don't refer to the "concepts"

Now I believe you are just arguing semantics. You have compared this scale replica to models of the Saturn V and Space Shuttle and yet when those earlier models debuted, they too were just concepts.

quote:I refer only to the OFFICIAL vehicles from NASA like the defininitive Apollo, LEM, SaturnV and Shuttle design

And I refer to the fact that there were models for each of the vehicles that you list that were displayed prior to their first launch. Many had models produced during their development cycles, like Ares I, that differed from the final configuration.

quote:I think that NASA must expose a vehicle only after its final design or (better) after its first real flight

This was how the Soviets (and now the Chinese) ran their space program — only sharing their successes. The U.S. can pride itself on running an open program that shares its work during all stages of development, regardless the outcome of the designs.

gaetanomarano

quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:...only sharing their successes...

no, not "only the success" but "only the rockets really built and launched"

I insist (and, of course, story may say I'm wrong) on my first point: the real stick may be completely different or (also) never exist

the Ares of the image is not a small model built for tests or to show it at press conference... it's a big model made to show the same way of other real rockets

it's not a successful or a failed rocket, it's simply a rocket that doesn't exist (and, I think, will never exist)

GACspaceguy

I am behind in reading cS as I have been out of town for a while, but I would like to jump in on this. It appears that the controversy here is that NASA might be doing something now that they have not done in the past. I think that is GREAT! That is exactly what NASA needs, forward thinking. I think that this is a way to have the folks at NASA “catch the vision” (and for the public as well, when it is on display). This is not the 60’s and the ability to have a conceptual model available early in the development stages are easier and less costly to have manufactured. This is common practice in today’s aviation industry and yes the vehicle will change, but as of today this is the concept.

Sitting on my coffee table is an interesting model of a J2 simplified rocket engine. When I won it at the Superior auction in St Louis last year I just thought it was an interesting concept model. Imagine how surprised I was when I saw it in AW&ST as the engine of choice for this new generation vehicle. Is it the exact replica of the J2X they are working on now? No it is not, but it is similar. At sometime it was someone’s vision and now it is being used. It is time to catch the vision, get on board and get behind the new program or ten years from now we will be posting how it could have been. Gone are the days of Apollo and the Saturn V, and you would be kidding yourself if you think that type of enthusiasm and funding would happen again. What needs to happen is a steady development based on past successful design concepts. That is what happens when you move from development into implementation.

BTW someday we will look back and will be trying to collect some of these first concepts.

Chuck Lewis

I think it's great that the Ares I is on display. In fact it would be even better if it were on display somewhere that more of America's youth could see it.

tegwilym

quote:Originally posted by Chuck Lewis:I In fact it would be even better if it were on display somewhere that more of America's youth could see it.